Talk:United Malays National Organisation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about United Malays National Organisation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Reverted edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I reverted the edit by Cibaiumno (talk · contribs) because it is not sourced according to our standards, and does not conform with our neutral point of view policy. If sources can be found, I'll help to rewrite the material so it can be written from a more neutral perspective. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are people taking blog for citation, isnt that violation of NPOV, WP:V, Bias, furthermore no original research.--60.52.16.63 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

UMNO Baru

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is important to know that UMNO baru was formulated by Dr. M and today he has resigned from UMNO. The question here is it looks like UMNO is no more of relevance as Dr. M has not continue to be a member of the party. The Raykat still in puzzle . Possibily has has no confidence in UMNO baru . Second he has run away from responsibilities. Now Pak LAh take over and I think credit should be given to Pak Lak . My puzzle is some one is creating a stage show and is watching and the UMNO has lost its direction already as the one who started it has literally disappear. It is like a diamond which is fake. When people are puzzle some thing has to be done. Think about it.

We love Malaysia Is the people real in what they do?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.69.237 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Far right

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed the infobox reference to UMNO's political position being "far right". There are no reliable sources to support this; and no sensible political scientist would ascribe the label "far right" to UMNO. Indeed, with the exception of the DAP (left), it is impossible to ascribe traditional political spectrum positions to mainstream Malaysian parties because Malaysian politics is not divided on right-left lines. Happy to discuss. Lest anyone think I am pro-UMNO, I planned on making the same edit to PAS only to see that someone else has beaten me to it. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On contrary there are political analysis from Malaysia considered UMNO a right-wing party due its hardline nationalist and conservative stance. --the way of the force 11:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)

Where? First, there is a difference between "right wing" and "far right". The latter is perjorative. Second, to label a party as "far right" in an encyclopedic entry, you need to cite reliable sources. I note you've edited the entry to "right-wing" - while the source cited for this is very thin, it's less perjorative so I think it can stand for now. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me the differences between right-wing and far right. There are political commentators that labeled UMNO as far right owing to its racial violence in May 13 incident, its belief in Malay Supremacist and the recent persecution of hindu and ethnic indian in Malaysia. I'm just trying to find a compromisable and proper term to describe it in encyclopedia.--the way of the force 11:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

By any internationl standard, a party based around a single race and which claims that race has rights not given to other races in the same nation, is on the far-right.--Paul Moloney (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an opinion, which may be valid. But a statement in an encyclopaedia that a party is far-right needs to be supported by reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the Wikipedia definition of far-right be a reliable source?: "The ideologies associated with the social far right are [...] racial supremacists [...] religious extremists, and other ultra-nationalist or reactionary ideologies and movements" Paul Moloney (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Additionally, it is not a definition of far-right that needs to be sourced. Having a sourced definition and then saying in the article that UMNO meets it is original research. To call UMNO far-right, the article needs reliable sources saying that UMNO is far-right.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United Malays National Organisation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a high level review now since the article is a fairly decent length.

The image in the lead's info box has a tag for deletion for possible copyright infringement and complexity of the image. This needs to be addressed.
Per the GA Criteria it is important to have images in the article. Except for the graphic in the lead and a flag in the History section there are no images. Given the length of the article I think some free-use images can be found and added.
The Lead is too short for the article. An article of this length should have at least three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for requirements of a lead, basically it should summarize every point made in the article.
There are several dead links in the reference section. These include: 5, 10, 16, 40-45, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59 and three of the links in the "other references" are dead. My check links tool is a bit spotty so if these numbers aren't correct please let me know and I'll look a little more closely at it.
Be sure to put accessdates for any websites or google books used. Also formatting for refs 60, 62-66 are not correct, please use ref templates as done in the other refs.
I see quite a few one and two sentence paragraphs. Please either expand these stubs or combine them together for better flow and readability.
The referencing in the Independence sub-section is very sporadic and sparse. I see 4 in-line cites in the first four paragraphs and then nothing until two in the last paragraph of the section. And those are in the middle of the para. What about the rest of the section?
I added a ^{[citation needed]} template to the end of the New Economic Policy subsection. The final three paragraphs (one of which is a one-sentence stub, see above) have no citation.

At this point there are quite of few issues with the article beyond the content. Once these issues are addressed I will go into the content of the article and assess the writing. I will put the article on hole for a week pending work. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no work has been done on this article within the hold period I will delist. H1nkles (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare Moderate Muslim and Moderate Islamist; Two differences

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

UMNO does not see itself as secular movement but a moderate Islamist which contradict the position of Moderate Muslims which advocate the secular democracy. UMNO advocate dual track system, where the state recognize Islam as State religion where the establishment Sharia law and Islamic Institute were preserve along with secular system, whereas Moderate or liberal Muslim struggles for complete separation of religion and state.--Thundera m117 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To declared UMNO as secular centrist party is another assumption and POV. UMNO cannot be describe as centrist since promote racial and ethnic supremacy and rights bumiputra over other race. UMNO also see itself as a social conservative and most of its economic policy happened to be pro-business. Please refer to Right-wing politics.There's no need for you add the term, Moderate Islamism, Islamic Hardari or 1Malaysia since each UMNO administration intepret its Islamic policy and Mutiracialiam by using these different terms. --Thundera m117 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

users 115.132.80.184 and 60.48.193.127 are the same person from Malaysia engaged in editing wars. Please continue the discussions on the article talk page, and don't keep redacting infobox until there's consensus from editors.--Thundera m117 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamists?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

UMNO is islamists? That's a joke. Where did that come from?170.38.99.56 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what UMNO's concept of Islam Hadhari is if it is not Islamist.Mhching (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been an uncited edit that changed the tone of the article to show that UMNO is a secular party. I have reverted the edits and urge that it be discussed here with a consensus of sorts achieved before any edits of that manner again. - - Bob K | Talk 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

@Mhching - is Islam Hadhari at its heart an Islamist policy? Arguably so, because it is supposed to have the Muslim leaders in Malaysia guide their decisions and actions by the precepts of Islam. Does having that policy make UMNO an Islamist party? No, because by design Islam Hadhari doesn't directly impact the political system used by Malaysia.

Essentially, today's UMNO is theoretically speaking trying to make a secular system work together with due regard to religious principles, not supplanting the secular system with a religious one, which is the major trait of Islamist thinking. This means that if you want to describe UMNO as anything, then it should be as a Muslim secular party, not a purely secular party and definitely not an Islamist party.

The easiest way to understand this is to compare it with the purely secularist Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the purely secularist Parti Ugama Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS): UMNO's political ideology in relation to the application of religion to politics falls between the "separate mosque/church/temple and state" stance of DAP and the "Qur'an and Hadith as highest law instead of the Constitution" stance of PAS. - - 219.95.31.240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.31.240 (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with 219.95.31.240. Again, the word is neutrality, folks. 121.120.190.165 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If UMNO is Muslim secular Party than it would have adopted total separation of Mosque and State instead of partially Implemented Shariah Law in every state.(e.g. Mahathir Mohammad who's member of UMNO define Malaysia as an Islamic State). Whether it is an absolute or partial establishment of Islamic Law (Shariah),whether it is Islam Hadari or Wahabi Islam, UMNO ideology is antithesis to secularism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If UMNO is classified as an Islamist party because of Malaysia's sharia laws, then Singapore's PAP should also be an Islamist party because sharia is also practiced in Singapore. (Check up the sharia court's official website.http://app.syariahcourt.gov.sg/syariah/front-end/SYCHome_E.aspx) Of course it cannot be, because sharia found it practice back in 1955, under the British. UMNO is more like the Turkish Committee of Union and Progress, though being nationalistic and brutal, is not Islamistic. 220.255.1.94 (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

neutral tone

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I added an NPOV-section tag to the Ideology section. Reading this section, it seems written clearly portray the party in a negative light, instead of simply defining what the party stands for. On Wikipedia, we are not here to make value judgements. Even if the sources which are cited are anti-UMNO sites, we should only report the facts themselves in a neutral tone, as per WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. I hope someone with more knowledge on the topic can rewrite this section with a more neutral tone.--Aervanath (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The latest edit by 60.49.246.102 seems to be biased. Any comment on possibility of reversion?Mhching (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aervanath. Frankly I dont see why so many articles on Malaysian politics in Wikipedia like this one have to sound like they're written by pro-DAP secularists. The word is neutrality people, learn it and apply it. 121.120.190.165 (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. obviously neutrality is not very evident in the article, which really sounds like it is written by anti-umno writers. Such bias and sensations towards certain parties are not welcomed in an encyclopedic article. I found the link to this page (UMNO) is enlisted in the link box below the page of another article, of which the link box is entitled 'Nazism'. how is UMNO related to Nazism? this is just another anti-UMNO 'writer' stupidly making biased changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjang Akuan (talk • contribs) 12:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Error Fixed

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I spotted a spelling error as below: "UNO strongly opposed the Malayan Union, but originally did not seek political power."

Thus, i fixed it to UMNO. Maximenz (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thundera m117 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)== Islamism in UMNO. ==

UMNO has never been puritan Islamic Party like PAS but again the organization has admit itself to be defender of Malay rights and Islam. UMNO has never claimed to be a secular party

UMNO is definitely 'pro-Islam'. No doubt about it. But 'Islamism' is a different concept. Find reliable sources that clearly say UMNO = Islamist and I won't have any objections. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright if you find Malaymail unacceptable to your definition you can remove for now. I'll have to check with RSS tommorow.Thundera m117 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I will do that. I think for this kind of thing, a reliable peer-reviewed political science publication is necessary. That's why I'm fine with Ketuanan Melayu now -- the source on that was pretty good. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty reliable and accurate summary: 'UMNO is widely seen to be more nationalistic and secular while PAS pursues the Islamic path as an alternative to UMNO's brand of Islam'. Likewise: 'During Mahathir's tenure, UMNO increasingly shifted part of its political rhetoric to Islamist wording ... PAS demanded further Islamization policies'. In summary: it's certainly right to say UMNO pursues pro-Islamic policies, and certainly rhetoric, you couldn't call the party's platform, as a whole, "Islamist". That's really the key distinction between UMNO and PAS: the "Islamist" label only really fits the latter. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United Malays National Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Malays National Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)